If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Wow Junc! You sure have done a 360 on your view of bad calls and lucky breaks.

The Holmes and Cruz play were completely different situations. Cruz went down on his own with not much time left in the game. The officials had reason to believe that he was declaring himself down. I think the Cruz play was a bad call since Cruz did not know the rule and he thought he was touched down. Holmes went down because he got injured and it was at the beginning of the 4th quarter. He threw the ball away in under a second after he hit the ground. That is not declaring yourself down. That is a stupid play. Even if Holmes intended to give himself up, there was no way for the officials to determine if he was declaring himself down since he tossed the ball away so quickly. He was not down, and he was not declaring himself down. You could argue that it was an illegal forward pass, but Holmes did not declare himself down.

The Epps play was very close, but I would agree with you that it was a bad call.

You are way off on the Tampa call. Mike Williams barely got his second foot down before he was knocked out of bounds. He was bobbling the ball the whole time and never demonstrated possession. Take a look at it again:

I'm not getting into the Manningham reception again. You can go back to that other thread and read all about why that was a catch.

Cruz thought he fumbled, manning thought the game was over. he didn't give himself up, Holmes couldn't move b/c he was hurt, he was given up.

Mike Williams caught the ball, got his feet down then was hit where the ball came loose.

it wasn't a catch by the rulebook which was posted numerous times in that other thread. The bottom line is this, switch the teams and the calls change. heck the biggest difference btw the Jets in the '10 title game and NYG in '11 was on an extremely close play they rules Sanchez's pass a fumble and they blew the whistle on Ahmad Bradshaw's fumble late in the game. Those close plays go the other way and NYG doesn't have a SB and we might have made it.

Cruz thought he fumbled, manning thought the game was over. he didn't give himself up, Holmes couldn't move b/c he was hurt, he was given up.

Mike Williams caught the ball, got his feet down then was hit where the ball came loose.

it wasn't a catch by the rulebook which was posted numerous times in that other thread. The bottom line is this, switch the teams and the calls change. heck the biggest difference btw the Jets in the '10 title game and NYG in '11 was on an extremely close play they rules Sanchez's pass a fumble and they blew the whistle on Ahmad Bradshaw's fumble late in the game. Those close plays go the other way and NYG doesn't have a SB and we might have made it.

Cruz did give himself up. He looked over his shoulder and saw the defender closing in on him and dropped to the ground on his own. He didn't know about the rule, and thought he was touched down, which is why he put the ball on the ground. That is why I think it was a bad call, but I can see why the officials thought he was giving himself up. There is no way the officials could think that Holmes was giving himself up. Injured players going to the ground are not declared down until they are touched down. Injured players falling to the ground are not falling to the ground to declare themselves down. They are going to the ground becasue they are injured. Most hold on to the ball until they are touched down. Holmes was stupid, didn't care, and tossed it away as soon as he hit the ground.

Mike Williams never demonstrated possession. The ball was moving before he dropped it out of bounds. That is not even a close play. Please look at it again! Bad calls do happen, but most of the ones you are mentioning were the right calls.

The rule was posted in that other thread which you apparently still don't understand. It is hilarious that you are arguing that the Mike Williams play was a catch (when he never demonstrated possession and he completely dropped the ball out of bounds) and arguing that the Manningham play was not a catch becasue the ball moved slightly. Just like you argue that the Cruz play was a bad call when they ruled him down, but argue the opposite on the Holmes play.

he didn't know the rule and thought he fumbled, he didn't willingly throw the ball up like Holmes.

Williams did demonstrate possession, he had it and ran for 2 steps before being hit and the ball came out.

either the Cruz and Holmes plays are both down or both fumbles and if one wasn't it was the Holmes play b/c he actually gave himself up.

It doesn't really matter if he knew the rule or not. What matters is how the officials interpret his actions. He absolutely gave the ball up willingly. It didn't get knocked out. He went to the ground on his own (thought he was touched down) then willingly dropped the ball on his own. The game situation and the time that passed when he went to the ground was enough for the officials to determine that he was giving himself up. Again, I don't agree with the call becasue we know that is not what he was doing based on his post game comments, but I can see why the offcials made the call. That is not the case with Holmes. Holmes went to the ground only becasue of an injury (He didn't willingly go down on his own) and immediately tossed the ball away. He did not care about the game situation or anything other than the pain he was in. That is not giving yourself up. Even if you truly thought that is what he was trying to do, there is no way for the officials to determine that, since he did it so quickly.

Williams was bobbling it the whole time. Even if he was not, the ball is not allowed to come out of his possession on a sideline catch. This is what kills me with you. You argue that the Manningham play shouldn't have been ruled a catch because the ball moved slightly (even though he maintained possession the whole time), but you then argue that the Mike Williams play should have been ruled a catch when he completely dropped the ball. He didn't have it and run for 2 steps. He was in the air when he caught it, and barley got the second foot down before he was hit and lost the ball. Even Mike Williams himself admits that it wasn't a catch:

Williams: "I have to hold onto it. I have to go all the way through the ground with it. Itís one of those situations that I have to learn from right there. He kind of popped into my view real late, I couldnít get it all the way up to my chin, and it bobbled out."

that quote tells us nothing. either way the calls were made and they aren't changing.

It tells us that even Mike Williams knows the rule and knows it wasn't a catch. The call shouldn't change because the officials made the right call. Mike Williams doesn't know what he is talking about though. The officials don't know what they are talking about, and anyone else who sees that was not a catch don't know what they are talking about. The only thing that matters is your interpretation of the sideline catch rule where you say the ball can't move an inch, or it isn't a catch. Unless, the team you are playing is the Giants. In that case, you can completely drop the ball out of bounds and it should be ruled a catch.

he caught it, possessed it, took 2 steps in stride then got hit and the ball came out out of bounds.

Why would he tell us that if he thought it should have been ruled a catch? He told us that becasue he knows that he has to maintain control throughout the process of contacting the ground. He never even had to worry about hitting the ground becasue he dropped it long before that. He caught it in the air (bobbled it) got 2 feet down before getting hit and the ball came out. You can have control of the ball (even with ball movement when you hit the ground), but you obviously can not have control of the ball when it falls out of your hands and hits the ground.